No More Learning

Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 526
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the ship Britannia which arrived from London in the first
few days of November, and the merchants to whom they
were consigned were induced by the committee to go on
board and throw the tea into the river. On the same day
six chests of smuggled tea were re-shipped to the port
whence they had come, with a caution to the shipper not to
venture any more.
The non-importation regulations of the Association
were enforced with as great impartiality and enthusiasm.
Although the details of the transactions have not come
down to us, Timothy's Gasette makes it evident that im-
portations arriving between December 1, 1774, and Feb-
ruary 1, 1775, were sold at committee auction almost as
quickly as the vessels arrived. 1 After February 1, the
committee displayed great diligence in effecting the return
of cargoes without landing any part of them. Three ves-
sels arrived in February: one was turned away; and in the
case of the other two, the consignees preferred to cast into
the sea their merchandise, consisting of 3844 bushels of
salt, 35 caldrons of coal, 45,500 tiles and two tons of pota-
toes, rather than return it. 2 In March, four more vessels
were turned away. 8 Of the brigantine Industry, Timothy's
Gasette remarked laconically: "Nothing was landed but a
Man, his Wife, and six fine Children. "
The affair of Robert Smyth brought the zeal of the popu-
lace into play. Smyth had returned to Charleston in the
snow Proteus, bringing with him from London his house-
hold furniture and two horses that belonged to him. Upon
an appeal to the General Committee it was decided by a
bare majority of the thirty-three members present that this
1 E. g. , vide S. C. Gas. , Dec. 19, 26, 1774.
1 Ibid. , Feb. 27, Mch. 6, 1775. Vide also letter in Mass. Gas. & Post-
Boy, Apr. 3.
1S. C. Gas. , Mch. 6, 13, 27, Apr. 3, 1775.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
527
importation did not violate the spirit of the Association.
This decision caused mutterings and threats among the
people, and a couple of days later a petition, signed by
more than two hundred and fifty people, was presented to
the General Committee, asking for a reconsideration of the
decision in a full meeting. In consequence, another meet-
ing was held at which seventy members were present as well
as a great crowd of the tumultuous townsmen. Gadsden
moved to rescind the part of the former vote that had
authorized the landing of the horses. He urged that it was
contrary to the Association; that it would alarm the north-
ern provinces; that, in any case, the committee as servants
of the people, were bound to yield to their constituents. On
the other side, Thomas Lynch, the Rutledges and Rawlins
Lowndes were the chief speakers. They contended that to
reverse the vote would be to cast contempt upon the com-
mittee; and that the spirit, not the letter, of the Association
should be observed. William H. Drayton arose in reply.
He argued that if the committee refused to change for fear
of contempt, the king of England might reasonably use the
same justification for his course; and, furthermore, that it
was always safer to follow the letter than to explore the
spirit of a law. When the vote was put, Gadsden's motion
prevailed by a vote of thirty-five to thirty-four. 1 "It is
worthy of remark," Drayton records, "that this is the first
instance of a point of importance and controversy being
carried against those by whose opinion the people had been
long governed. "
Like the other plantation provinces, the radicals sought
to safeguard the operation of the Association by endeavor-
ing to paralyze the pecuniary power of the mercantile class.
The provincial congress of January, 1775, passed a unani-
1 Drayton, Memoirs, vol. i, pp. 182-187; 5. C. Gas. , Mch. 27, 1775.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 528
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
mous resolution vesting the local committees of observation
with complete control over prosecutions for debt. No
action for debt should be commenced in the court of com-
mon pleas, nor any such action begun there since the Sep-
tember return should be proceeded in, without the consent
of the parish or district committee. In certain cases the
committees were instructed to permit prosecution: when-
ever debtors refused to renew their obligations or to give
reasonable security; when they were justly suspected of an
intention to depart the province or defraud their creditors;
or whenever there should appear any other reasonable cause
for granting permission. 1
The only action in behalf of domestic production ema-
nated from the provincial congress in January. The in-
habitants were asked to give a preference to their own
manufactures, to cultivate cotton, hemp, wheat, barley and
hops, and to kill no sheep for sale after March I following.
A resolution was passed to employ storekeepers at Charles-
ton, Georgetown and Beaufort to buy all the wool that
might be brought to them, at stated rates, and to sell the
wool to weavers at cost price; and also to market domestic
linens, woolens and cottons without charge to the manu-
facturers. 8 Apparently not so much attention was paid to
the sumptuary regulations as in Virginia and Maryland.
However, the mourning regulations were widely observed.
Also, at Charleston the concerts of the St. Coecilia Society
were suspended; and the races at Georgetown were called
off. 1
All things considered, the statement of the General Com-
mittee in a letter to the Committee of Sixty at New York
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, p. 1113.
1Ibid. , vol. i, pp. 1112-1113, 1116.
8 5. C. Co*. , Nov. 21, Dec. 19, 1774.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
529
on March 1, 1775, seems well substantiated so far as the
essential features of the Association were concerned. "We
have the pleasure to inform you," the letter said, "that in
this colony the Association takes place as effectually as law
itself. . . . We may assure you of our fixed determination
to adhere to the resolutions at all hazards; and that minis-
terial opposition is here obliged to be silent. " 1
While the Continental Association was being put into
operation in the twelve Associated Provinces, certain
other parts of continental British America, of lesser im-
portance, held sternly aloof from the movement. This
brought into operation the comprehensive boycott recom-
mended by Article xiv against dissentient provinces. South
Carolina was most intimately concerned in the failure of
Georgia to join the league of provinces, as the staples of
the two provinces were the same. Therefore, on February
8, 1775, the General Committee at Charleston decreed that
thereafter all "Trade, Commerce, Dealings or Intercourse"
should cease with the inhabitants of that province. 2
A few weeks later delegates from St. John's Parish in
Georgia arrived in Charleston and sought to show reason
to the General Committee why St. John's Parish should be
exempted from the boycott. They contended that Article
xiv should "be considered as a general rule only, and as
respects this Province [Georgia] considered in a mixed or
promiscuous sense; but, as we of this Parish are a body
detached from the rest by our Resolutions and Association,
and sufficiently distinct by local situation, large enough for
particular notice . . . , adjoining a sea-port . . . , there-
1 N. Y. Journ. , Apr. 6, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 2.
1Ibid. , vol. i, p. 1163; also S. C. Gas. , Mch. 6, 1775. South Caro-
linians, owning plantations in Georgia or having debts due from there,
? were specifically exempted from the terms of the resolution.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 530 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
fore we must be considered as comprehended within the
spirit and equitable meaning of the Continental Associa-
tion. " But the General Committee felt constrained to ad-
here to a literal interpretation of the Association, and ad-
vised the people of St. John's to present their case before
the ensuing Continental Congress. 1 This course the St.
John's committee perforce determined to adopt. Meantime,
being denied trade with South Carolina, the parish found it
impossible to subsist without some limited trading connec-
tions with the merchants at Savannah; and so they were
forced to forego an absolute boycott for a carefully regu-
lated trade under the supervision of a committee especially
appointed for the purpose. 2
Georgia was not the only British province on the conti-
nent to be delinquent on this important occasion, although
it was the only one of the old thirteen in which the Conti-
nental Association was not being effectively executed. The
First Continental Congress had invited Quebec, St. John's
Isle,8 Nova Scotia, and East and West Florida to accede to
the Association; * and the threat of boycott in Article xiv
applied, by its terms, to " any colony or province in North-
America. " Not one of these places was of importance
commercially; but it was deemed desirable by the radical
party that British America should offer a united front to
the mother country. Early in February, 1775, it developed
that there was an inclination among the British merchants
in the city of Quebec to adopt the Association; but no.
1 S. C. Gas. , Mch. 6, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1161-1163.
1 Journals Cont. Cong. (L. C. Edn. ), vol. ii, pp. 45-48. For Gov-
ernor Wright's view of this arrangement, vide White, Ga. Hist. Colls,
p. 523.
1 The early name for Prince Edward Island.
* Journals Cont. Cong. , vol. i, pp. 101, 103, 105-113.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
531
action was taken because, 'according to one merchant there,
"it would only serve to throw the trade out of our own
hands into those of the French, who would never listen to
any proposals of that kind but rejoice in such an opportun-
ity to wrest the trade from us. " 1 It was true of all these
regions that, due to a preponderance of aliens in the popu-
lation, a sympathetic understanding of the constitutional
and governmental principles at stake was lacking.
Further-
more, the inhabitants relished the prospect of diverting to
themselves the rich trade which had been monopolized by
the older and more populous communities. 2
After a lull of several weeks following the action of
South Carolina with reference to Georgia, the northern
provinces began to pass resolutions of boycott which
affected all the dissentient provinces. On April 17, the
Philadelphia committee served warning on the local mer-
chants that such a measure impended; and ten days later
a resolution was adopted for suspending all exportation to
Georgia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and all parts
of the fishing coasts and fishing islands until the Continental
Congress should direct otherwise. 8 The fisheries were in-
cluded in the boycott because of the news, recently received,
of the act of Parliament restraining New England from
the fisheries. On May 1, the Maryland provincial conven-
tion passed a similar resolution, and in turn extended the
boycott to include the town of Boston, which was now
occupied by the British forces as an armed camp after the
fighting at Lexington and Concord. 4 On the same day the
1Letter of Dec. 24, 1774, Pa. Packet, Feb. 13, 1775; also Mass. Ga*.
& Post-Boy, Feb. 27.
1? . g. , vide Pub. Rec. Off. , C. O. 5, no. 138 (L. C. Transcripts),
p. 404; 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1164-1165.
3Ibid. , vol. ii, pp. 338, 421; also Pa. Eve. Post, Apr. 18, 29, 1775.
* Md. Gas. , May 4, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 380.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 53-5
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
New York committee took like action;l and the committees
of Cumberland County, Va. , and Newark, N. J. , followed
later in the month. 2
When the Second Continental Congress assembled on the
tenth of May, one of the first questions that had to be
settled concerned the status of St. John's Parish under the
Association. Dr. Lyman Hall presented himself as the
delegate of the parish, and his admission to the membership
was voted unanimously. 8 On the seventeenth when a reso-
lution was passed suspending exportation to all the recal-
citrant provinces, St. John's Parish was expressly exempted
from its terms. The resolution applied to the rest of
Georgia, to Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, St. John's
Isle, East and West Florida, and the British fisheries on the
American coasts. 4 Thus, so far as action of Congress
could effect it, the export trade of the twelve Associated
Provinces was withheld from these parts. The provincial
congress of New Jersey took occasion on May 26 to recom-
mend to the people of that province to adhere " religiously"
to the resolution,6 and the Virginia House of Burgesses
took a similar step on June 19. 3 On June 7, the Wilming-
ton, N. C. , committee voted to withhold all exportations
destined for the British army and navy, for Newfoundland,
and for the northern provinces from whence provisions
could be had for these purposes. 7
14 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 469; also N. Y. Journ. , May 4, 1775.
1 Purdie's Va. Gas. , July 7, 1775, and N. Y. Journ. , June I; also 4 Am.
Arch. , vol. ii, pp. 622, 634.
1 He was not permitted to vote in cases where the ballot was taken
by provinces. Journals, vol. ii, pp. 44-45, 49-50.
4 Ibid. , vol. ii, p. 54.
1 N. Y. Gas. , May 29, 1775; also / AT. /. Arch. , vol. x, pp. 597-598.
? 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 1221.
1 AT. C. Col. Recs. , vol. x, p. 12.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES 533
These resolutions, it would appear, were excellently kept.
For example, the Philadelphia committee in May prevented
the departure of two cargoes intended for Newfoundland;l
and in September the New York committee held up for
public neglect the owners of two vessels that had been
trading with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. 2 The effect
of the boycott was not what had been expected. Deep dis-
tress was experienced at Newfoundland and the various
fishing settlements because of their reliance on New Eng-
land for food; but after a time the British government suc-
ceeded in affording them some relief, and they were also
surreptitiously aided by the enterprise of Nantucket fisher-
men. * The people of East Florida also found themselves
temporarily in want of provisions. 4 Quebec and Nova
Scotia, as has been already noted, probably felt no serious
inconvenience and were, on the other hand, receiving en-
hanced prices in the West Indies for their grain, flour and
flax-seed. * Only Georgia found herself in distress, with-
out prospect of relief, and torn by civil discord. But Geor-
gia's adhesion to the Continental Association was to come
only through the shock caused by the outbreak of hostilities.
1 Journals, vol. ii, p. 52.
1N. Y. Gas. , Sept. 4, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 622-624.
* Letters from Newfoundland in N. Y. Journ. , June 29, Aug. 24, 1775.
English exports to Newfoundland increased from ? 77,263 in 1774 to
? 130. 280 in 1775. Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
The act of 16 George III, c. 37, permitted the exportation of peas and
biscuit to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Labrador.
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 703-707. English exports to Florida in-
creased from ? 52,149 in 1774 to ? 85,254 in 1775. Macpherson, op. cit. ,
vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
'4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1164-1165; Pub. Rec. Off. , C. O. 5, no. 138
(L. C. Transcripts), p. 404. At Quebec English imports increased from
? 307. 635 in 1774 to ? 472,368 in 1775; at Nova Scotia, from ? 47,148 to
? 56. 308. Macpherson, op. cit. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl.